Now, on Wikipedia, the rules for editing hold that all articles should be based on Reliable Sources, which makes sense, no?

You would not want to base an Encyclopedia on random junk generated by bullshit artists: that would not do.

And what source could be more reliable, for information on the mental and physical health consequences of the use of cannabis, than a study of these effects performed by our very own United States Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, undertaken in order to assess the value of cannabis as a medication?

A study with thorough attention to detail, a study soundly buttressed by serious research data, void of the detrimental qualities associated with the random opinionation of amateurs which we so frequently find attached to bullshit rhetorical devices?

“Just the facts, m’am.”

Sad to say, I’ve already forgotten what I wrote already, and the whole intent behind this post, which kind of sucks… but I no longer smoke pot, so I’m a lot more ADDish nowadays?

Less focus… more fun!

Whatever, Science Rocks!, we could use more… and when is a Reliable Source… not?

“As Mary Daly has pointed out, the spirit can always contain the body but the body cannot always contain the spirit. She notes that a radical feminist analysis will see the problem to be one of overcoming the containment of spirit by body. In contrast to the transsexual who -embodies- transcendence, I suggest that we -“enspirit.”- Daly explains this word further:

– “The process of the Self enspiriting the Self is Dis-possession. The enspiriting Self is not anti-matter, but pro-matter, freeing matter from its restricting/restricted role of vessel/container, unfreezing matter so that it can flow with spirit, fly with spirit.”

She’s just the gal you wanna hire, to draft an “objective”, concise evaluation of the ethical aspects of transsexualism… if you believe that the “insights” of spook-wannabes should govern our world, and wish to anathematize transsexuals?

4 Responses to Truth, Lies, and “Reliable Sources”

comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Carol… I believe it’s true that there are broad areas of Wikipedia where it’s fairly reliable.

… on the other hand, in articles covering topics where the subject area is subject to intense political contention, and the “Reliable Sources” on which Wikipedia is supposed to be based are themselves biased and unreliable… the Wikipedia policy mandating reliance of “Reliable Sources” bears an ill fruit.

For example, using the Institute of Medicine report I cite: an editor could use it as support for inserting the claim in the article on “Cannabis” that “marijuana users have difficulty carrying on an intelligible conversation; this may be caused by marijuana’s disruption of short-term memory.”

But that’s a ludicrous claim, and moreover it is one completely unsupported by any citation provided in the original source. Nevertheless, one could use it as a citation in Wikipedia… thus, the inappropriate venting of an opinion in what ought to be a sound report on medicine may become entrenched as “fact” in public discourse, an undesirable outcome… I do believe.

thanks!
– bonzie anne

PS: I edited Wikipedia for a couple of years, mostly on topics related to transsexualism and transgender issues, but have given it up as a lost cause: there’s too much vandalism and too many contentious editors who don’t follow Wikipedia’s rules for editing to make it worthwhile for me. This effect gets a lot worse in those areas, where there are many published authors making claims — some of which are not based on scientific research at all — and too often it is the case that their opinions are very poorly considered ones, with little or no basis in fact…

As is the case with Prof. Janice Raymond’s “research paper” which I have linked above. It doesn’t even qualify as “junk science”, since it deals mostly in social and philosophical speculation based on bits and pieces of cherry-picked “scientific research” of an exceptionally weak character; nevertheless, that paper was used to justify terminating both insurance coverage and public funding through Medicare for transsexual surgery in the US.